It may be that Canterbery overplays not only the influence of the rentier class of bondholders or the capitalist class as coupon-clipping rentiers on the actions taken by the Fed but also the central role of the Fed in the economy--a bit of money fetishism?
In particular, I am confused as to how post keynesian theorists insist on both the endogeneity of the money supply (that is, the Fed is obliged to supply the quantity of money that is demanded by economic agents) while elevating the Fed to the key, autonomous institution in the determination of the performance of the macroeconomy.
Of course this would take detailed study; perhaps Tom Dickens is still on the list and Brad DeLong's analysis would be of course be welcomed. At any rate, Doug, this is certainly your area of expertise.
There is also (within that academic ghetto of marxism) the old instrumentalist vs structuralist debate in the study of state institutions (Bob Jessop's books on state theory are a good, though itself overly jargony, introduction for anyone who wants to acquaint himself with this bit of Marxist theory as is Duncan Foley's *short* book on Understanding Marx's Capital for anyone who wants to take up the debates over value theory Shane Mage's interpretation of which I recently partially criticized)...
At any rate, are state institutions best understood as working directly *at the behest* of the capitalist class or blocs of capital which have achieved hegemony over others blocs of capital; or as responding to more *systematic pressures* (so in this case perhaps maintainence of confidence in the dollar as a world currency)?
Is there anything at stake in such a distinction? Indeed this way of posing the question may be flawed as well (some of the value form theorists like John Holloway on the aut-op-sy list at jefferson.village.virginia.edu/spoons would conceive of the state in a different and compelling way, but at this point one would be deep sea diving in the unexplored Marxist ocean).
Rakesh